Explosive Words
Sunday, September 16th, 2001 12:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flwydWarning: this post makes claims which are not in line with socially accepted positions regarding disaster and mass loss of civilian life. If this may offend you, I offer you the chance to turn away.
Still here? Good. In no particular order, some philosophical observations.
Cowardice? It takes a lot of courage to knowingly kill yourself, your friends, and a lot of other people in a fireball for an ideal. When soldiers march off to certain death in support of Freedom, we call it courage. When a person flies a plane into certain death for a cause, why do we call it cowardice? Is it because they didn't formally declare war? They didn't call up the front desk of the World Trade Center and say "Hey. We're going to war with you. Let's meet in the field and blow each other's buildings up?" Ever see The Mouse That Roared?
How do we know all of the people they killed were innocent? The World Trade Center is teeming with people who make economic decisions which impact millions of people. Many people suffer adverse effects from sickness to pain to death from large-scale economic decisions. Some of the dead may have guilt on their head. Who can say? Maybe there were other terrorists in the building preparing some even more devastating plan, and the events of 9/11, in a rather perverse way, saved lives.
Why do we only mourn the innocents? Why has no one expressed sorrow for the loss of the individuals who hijacked and crashed the plane? They could have been wonderful people to spend time with. They may have contributed many wonderful things to society. They may have been genuinely nice people who just had a beef and a twisted plan to resolve it. Lots of people make public acts of remembrance for 13 individuals killed at Columbine. But who mourns the passing of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? I do.
When a friend is killed, you mourn the fact that you won't be able to spend any more time with her. The same is true when a friend commits suicide. When a stranger is killed, people mourn because they find the event sad. But why don't they mourn when he kills himself? I express regret for the life state of the suicidal. I also often express regret for the life state of those still alive.
This thirst for revenge. I don't quite get it. A significant portion of the people responsible are already dead. What more can be done to them? Disgrace their name? I think that'll be taken care of when their name is learned. Kill their families? That's wrong for two reasons. First, it doesn't harm the perpetrators, because they're beyond harm. Second, not being punished for crimes a person didn't commit sounds like a fairly core American value. I mean, how would you like it if your neighbor went postal and then killed himself and the government, in an act of retribution, arrested you? Are we trying to send a message to potential terrorists that we won't tolerate it? The point of terrorism isn't to have your act tolerated. And what deterrance can you give to someone who does not fear death and expects his family to be killed anyway?
Why revenge with bombs? The Taliban has expressed willingness to turn Osama bin Laden over to an American court if an impartial court, consisting partly of Arabian Muslims, finds that there is sufficient evidence to try bin Laden. If there is sufficient evidence of his involvement, I'm sure such a court would turn him over. Bombing Afghanistan would kill lots of people with no connection to terrorism who already fear for their lives in the civil war. And we might not even hit our target. Have we hit Saddam Hussein in the last ten years and seven months of bombs? Even if we could just bomb bin Laden, a fair trial is another core American value. I'm sure you'd be upset if, when the government suspected you of a crime, they shot you, rather than arresting you and taking you to court. The CIA also trained bin Laden, from what I gather. Shouldn't they be held responsible as well?
Patriotism I don't quite get. Patriotism often consists in undying support for a powerful organization with various positions, values, and followers. It often consists in a belief that said entity can do no wrong. That an offense to the entity is an offense to the individual and should be punished. And yet these people condemn fanaticism to Islam.
Assumptions, folks. Before thing one was known about the terrorists, people were blaming Muslims. Need I remind you that we just put down an American boy, trained by the military of the good ol' U.S. of A, for blowing up a federal building?
More assumptions. Not all Arabs are Muslims, especially Arab-Americans. Lots of folks leave the Middle East for America because they don't like their local government's policies. Many continue their religious practice here, many do not. Very few blow up buildings. So when you see a Muslim woman at Arizona State University, don't beat her to death. She wasn't involved. In exchange, I won't brutally beat the next Christian I see if President Bush decides to bomb someone. Furthermore, not all Muslims are Arabs. The country with the most Muslims is Indonesia. Many white folks in the U.S. follow Islam. They haven't blown up any buildings either. Interestingly enough, very few Christians today have marched to Jerusalem to take the Holy Land back from the Infidels. Of course, a lot of Christians support Jews doing this, but that's not my point.
On that note, why did Israel remove all of their ambassadors world-wide as soon as they heard about the attack? This isn't rhetorical, I'm honestly confused.
Back to patriotism. I don't feel it. I felt the same thing when I heard that terrorists had destroyed the World Trade Center as when I heard that the U.S. bombed 42 civilians on a bus in Yugoslavia. In both cases we lost fellow humans through violent acts by groups trying to achieve an end through poor means.
What was the message of the terrorists? I hope they had one; I'll be disappointed if the only point was to destroy the World Trade Center. At least provide some sort of claim about why a major figure of capitalism should be destroyed. Were they participants in the lesser jihad? Did they have some other agenda and may have incidentally been Muslim? Do we, in fact, yet know if they were Muslim at all?
Can we forget about the missle defense shield now? The U.S. has had exactly 0 missles fired at it in its entire history. Blowing things up from inside the country is cheaper and doesn't require advertising ownership of a missle.
What's all this about ending terrorism? That's sort of like trying to end riots. Even if you can prevent anyone else from ever hijacking a plane, terrorism will continue because its definition doesn't depend on a particular means. Terrorism consists in causing fear, pain, and destruction, usually with some end or principle in mind. The ways to do this are limited only by the terrorist's twisted mind. The best way to prevent terrorism is to conduct the world so that people don't have a reason to adopt terrorism.
I don't pay much attention to main-stream news. Has any network explained what the lesser jihad is? Has any network performed an analysis of why certain groups might oppose the U.S. enough to kill themselves and others in a strike against it?
People all over the world have shown great emotional support for the U.S. Would people across the U.S. hold silent vigils, construct flower memorials, and wave Iraqi flags if an American fundamentalist Christian flew a plane into a major building in Baghdad?
These people hijacked the planes with knives. In a country full of people who tout their right to bear arms for self-defense, why did three planes lack people also armed with short knives? Or enough people to overtake three individuals armed with knives?
Why do people rush to the blood centers in the wake of a tragedy, but don't give it a first thought during the rest of the year? Why do people donate to the Red Cross to help people who are in trouble because, through no fault of their own, the biggest economic building came crashing down around them, but will not donate a dime to help people who are in trouble because, through no fault of their own, are in the rubble of the largest economy in the world. Why will people go to great lengths to help people they don't know after a disaster, but won't go through miniscule lengths to help people they don't know and see on a normal day?
Why will people criticize me for these words? Why do people think less of me because I don't have an immediate emotional reaction to the news? These freedoms are what people claim were just attacked. And why do people think their freedom was under attack? I'm not aware of a blanket freedom from death by unusual and disastrous causes. Freedom lies in making choices before death comes. I hope we choose peace, cooperation, and support for all affected by this tragedy.
Still here? Good. In no particular order, some philosophical observations.
Cowardice? It takes a lot of courage to knowingly kill yourself, your friends, and a lot of other people in a fireball for an ideal. When soldiers march off to certain death in support of Freedom, we call it courage. When a person flies a plane into certain death for a cause, why do we call it cowardice? Is it because they didn't formally declare war? They didn't call up the front desk of the World Trade Center and say "Hey. We're going to war with you. Let's meet in the field and blow each other's buildings up?" Ever see The Mouse That Roared?
How do we know all of the people they killed were innocent? The World Trade Center is teeming with people who make economic decisions which impact millions of people. Many people suffer adverse effects from sickness to pain to death from large-scale economic decisions. Some of the dead may have guilt on their head. Who can say? Maybe there were other terrorists in the building preparing some even more devastating plan, and the events of 9/11, in a rather perverse way, saved lives.
Why do we only mourn the innocents? Why has no one expressed sorrow for the loss of the individuals who hijacked and crashed the plane? They could have been wonderful people to spend time with. They may have contributed many wonderful things to society. They may have been genuinely nice people who just had a beef and a twisted plan to resolve it. Lots of people make public acts of remembrance for 13 individuals killed at Columbine. But who mourns the passing of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? I do.
When a friend is killed, you mourn the fact that you won't be able to spend any more time with her. The same is true when a friend commits suicide. When a stranger is killed, people mourn because they find the event sad. But why don't they mourn when he kills himself? I express regret for the life state of the suicidal. I also often express regret for the life state of those still alive.
This thirst for revenge. I don't quite get it. A significant portion of the people responsible are already dead. What more can be done to them? Disgrace their name? I think that'll be taken care of when their name is learned. Kill their families? That's wrong for two reasons. First, it doesn't harm the perpetrators, because they're beyond harm. Second, not being punished for crimes a person didn't commit sounds like a fairly core American value. I mean, how would you like it if your neighbor went postal and then killed himself and the government, in an act of retribution, arrested you? Are we trying to send a message to potential terrorists that we won't tolerate it? The point of terrorism isn't to have your act tolerated. And what deterrance can you give to someone who does not fear death and expects his family to be killed anyway?
Why revenge with bombs? The Taliban has expressed willingness to turn Osama bin Laden over to an American court if an impartial court, consisting partly of Arabian Muslims, finds that there is sufficient evidence to try bin Laden. If there is sufficient evidence of his involvement, I'm sure such a court would turn him over. Bombing Afghanistan would kill lots of people with no connection to terrorism who already fear for their lives in the civil war. And we might not even hit our target. Have we hit Saddam Hussein in the last ten years and seven months of bombs? Even if we could just bomb bin Laden, a fair trial is another core American value. I'm sure you'd be upset if, when the government suspected you of a crime, they shot you, rather than arresting you and taking you to court. The CIA also trained bin Laden, from what I gather. Shouldn't they be held responsible as well?
Patriotism I don't quite get. Patriotism often consists in undying support for a powerful organization with various positions, values, and followers. It often consists in a belief that said entity can do no wrong. That an offense to the entity is an offense to the individual and should be punished. And yet these people condemn fanaticism to Islam.
Assumptions, folks. Before thing one was known about the terrorists, people were blaming Muslims. Need I remind you that we just put down an American boy, trained by the military of the good ol' U.S. of A, for blowing up a federal building?
More assumptions. Not all Arabs are Muslims, especially Arab-Americans. Lots of folks leave the Middle East for America because they don't like their local government's policies. Many continue their religious practice here, many do not. Very few blow up buildings. So when you see a Muslim woman at Arizona State University, don't beat her to death. She wasn't involved. In exchange, I won't brutally beat the next Christian I see if President Bush decides to bomb someone. Furthermore, not all Muslims are Arabs. The country with the most Muslims is Indonesia. Many white folks in the U.S. follow Islam. They haven't blown up any buildings either. Interestingly enough, very few Christians today have marched to Jerusalem to take the Holy Land back from the Infidels. Of course, a lot of Christians support Jews doing this, but that's not my point.
On that note, why did Israel remove all of their ambassadors world-wide as soon as they heard about the attack? This isn't rhetorical, I'm honestly confused.
Back to patriotism. I don't feel it. I felt the same thing when I heard that terrorists had destroyed the World Trade Center as when I heard that the U.S. bombed 42 civilians on a bus in Yugoslavia. In both cases we lost fellow humans through violent acts by groups trying to achieve an end through poor means.
What was the message of the terrorists? I hope they had one; I'll be disappointed if the only point was to destroy the World Trade Center. At least provide some sort of claim about why a major figure of capitalism should be destroyed. Were they participants in the lesser jihad? Did they have some other agenda and may have incidentally been Muslim? Do we, in fact, yet know if they were Muslim at all?
Can we forget about the missle defense shield now? The U.S. has had exactly 0 missles fired at it in its entire history. Blowing things up from inside the country is cheaper and doesn't require advertising ownership of a missle.
What's all this about ending terrorism? That's sort of like trying to end riots. Even if you can prevent anyone else from ever hijacking a plane, terrorism will continue because its definition doesn't depend on a particular means. Terrorism consists in causing fear, pain, and destruction, usually with some end or principle in mind. The ways to do this are limited only by the terrorist's twisted mind. The best way to prevent terrorism is to conduct the world so that people don't have a reason to adopt terrorism.
I don't pay much attention to main-stream news. Has any network explained what the lesser jihad is? Has any network performed an analysis of why certain groups might oppose the U.S. enough to kill themselves and others in a strike against it?
People all over the world have shown great emotional support for the U.S. Would people across the U.S. hold silent vigils, construct flower memorials, and wave Iraqi flags if an American fundamentalist Christian flew a plane into a major building in Baghdad?
These people hijacked the planes with knives. In a country full of people who tout their right to bear arms for self-defense, why did three planes lack people also armed with short knives? Or enough people to overtake three individuals armed with knives?
Why do people rush to the blood centers in the wake of a tragedy, but don't give it a first thought during the rest of the year? Why do people donate to the Red Cross to help people who are in trouble because, through no fault of their own, the biggest economic building came crashing down around them, but will not donate a dime to help people who are in trouble because, through no fault of their own, are in the rubble of the largest economy in the world. Why will people go to great lengths to help people they don't know after a disaster, but won't go through miniscule lengths to help people they don't know and see on a normal day?
Why will people criticize me for these words? Why do people think less of me because I don't have an immediate emotional reaction to the news? These freedoms are what people claim were just attacked. And why do people think their freedom was under attack? I'm not aware of a blanket freedom from death by unusual and disastrous causes. Freedom lies in making choices before death comes. I hope we choose peace, cooperation, and support for all affected by this tragedy.
